Got TIPS or BREAKING NEWS? Please call 1-284-442-8000 direct/can also WhatsApp same number or Email ALL news to:newsvino@outlook.com;                               ads call 1-284-440-6666

Special Select Committee says Willock must pay $98K court costs

- despite evidence showing the former Speaker was acting on instructions of Premier & knowledge of HoA Members
May 27th, 2022 | Tags:
The Special Select Committee appointed by the House of Assembly (HoA) in November 2021 to examine whether former Speaker Julian Willock should be indemnified of court costs or not has essentially concluded that he should be made to pay out of pocket. Photo: VINO/File
The Special Select Committee comprised (From left) Chairman Hon Vincent O. Wheatley (R9), Hon Mark H. Vanterpool (R4) and Hon Julian Fraser RA (R3). Photo: VINO/GIS/File
The Special Select Committee comprised (From left) Chairman Hon Vincent O. Wheatley (R9), Hon Mark H. Vanterpool (R4) and Hon Julian Fraser RA (R3). Photo: VINO/GIS/File
DUFF'S BOTTOM, Tortola, VI- The Special Select Committee appointed by the House of Assembly (HoA) in November 2021 to examine whether former Speaker Julian Willock should be indemnified of court costs or not has essentially concluded that he should be made to pay out of pocket.

Despite evidence being produced to the contrary, the Committee in its Report released May 26, 2022, concluded that the Speaker should not have brought the proceedings against the lawyers for the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) and he did not have expressed permission to do so on behalf of the House of Assembly.

‘Speaker’s action was not deemed warranted’- Special Select Committee

The Report also concluded that the Speaker’s action was not deemed warranted and it is without merit and as a result there should be no consideration of the matter by the House of Assembly.

The Committee appeared to have ignored the fact that Mr Willock was acting with the knowledge of the House of Assembly Members and on full agreement and instructions of the then Premier and Minister of Finance Hon Andrew A. Fahie (R1). The latter was confirmed in a letter by Silk Legal, who was initially contracted to represented HoA Members of the HoA who were not Ministers before the CoI.

Background

According to the Report, Mr Willock stated it was brought to the HoA’s attention that the three lawyers for the CoI were engaged in work illegally in the [British] Virgin Islands and this was further discussed with HoA Members about filing objections.

Mr Willock in his Testimony said it was agreed, that the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker file an objection to the application as they were working four months later, He indicated that while the Attorney General Dawn J. Smith did not object, she agreed in writing to a senior member of the Bar indicating that the lawyers were working illegally in the VI but she made it clear that she did not object.

After the objection application was filed by the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, the CoI went on break, therefore Judge Vicki- Ann Ellis set a date to have that the object hearing would have been heard on October 26, 2021. Two weeks later; however, the CoI announced that hearings would resume in September 2021.

“The Speaker and Deputy Speaker were advised by SILK [Legal] that since a date was set for the hearing to object the application. A part of the application is to file an injunction to prevent the lawyers from returning to work until the hearing. An injunction is an emergency and time was of the essence for them to file it with urgency.

All members were informed- Speaker

Due to time constraints, the Speaker stated that he consulted with the Minister of Finance, Hon Julian Fraser, the Deputy Speaker and the lawyer informing them of his decision. Both him and the Deputy Speaker filed the injunction. Once the injunction was filed the Speaker informed all Members,” the Report stated.

It also stated that the Speaker said the injunction was not to prevent the CoI from conducting their inquiry but to halt the inquiry until the hearing was heard in October.

Once the injunction was filed Judge Adrian Jack asked if the Speaker and Deputy had permission from the Attorney General. Mr Willock told the Committee that prior to all of the legal strategies no one indicated that they needed permission from the Attorney General.

Mr Willock said he then wrote to the Attorney General following the ruling of the Judge to seek permission; however, the AG did not respond to his letter and the decision was made to discontinue the injunction.

Judge Adrian Jack then ruled that since permission was not received from the Attorney General the Speaker would have to pay costs out of pocket. The cost listed was $98,676.51 in legal fees incurred by the defendants (UK lawyers).

Premier & Opposition were in support of Injunction- Deputy Speaker

Meanwhile, the Deputy Speaker, Hon Neville A. Smith (AL), in his testimony stated that the Premier asked that he (Deputy Speaker) be the liaison between the Premier and the Speaker. He was ordered by the Premier to inform the Speaker that the Government was in support of it (the injunction) but he (the Speaker) would need to dialogue with the Opposition.

The Deputy Speaker also stated that the Opposition was on board as well, but he (the Speaker) did not ask to what extent.

The Deputy Speaker stated that there was nothing in writing to him to convey to the Speaker.

AG & not Speaker is ‘guardian of public interest’- AG Smith

The Attorney General in her testimony said the Speaker acted ultra vires to the Constitution and the Standing Orders when he initiated the claim against the attorneys for the Commission of Inquiry.

She said the engagement of Silk Legal was clearly limited to the representation of the members of the House of Assembly in relation to the Commission of Inquiry only.

Further, she stated it is the Attorney General and not the Speaker who is the guardian of the public interest.

“The Speaker's actions, therefore, usurped the function of the Attorney General and accordingly the costs of the claim,” the AG stated.

The Special Select Committee comprised Chairman Hon Vincent O. Wheatley (R9), Hon Mark H. Vanterpool (R4) and Hon Julian Fraser RA (R3).

See letter below from SilK Legal acknowledging Mr Willock was not acting on his own:

May be an image of text

No photo description available.

20 Responses to “Special Select Committee says Willock must pay $98K court costs”

  • resident (27/05/2022, 11:58) Like (32) Dislike (2) Reply
    sell the wig
  • bad for business (27/05/2022, 12:19) Like (15) Dislike (0) Reply
    Escalade=1 hundred thou Mark's lawyer bill=1 hundred thou COI lawyer bill=1 hundred thou
  • oh boy (27/05/2022, 12:20) Like (20) Dislike (2) Reply
    The Esteem's pig came to a fine market
  • GRANNY (27/05/2022, 12:21) Like (19) Dislike (0) Reply
    "WHO DONT HEAR WILL FEEL"
  • O’Neal (27/05/2022, 12:23) Like (20) Dislike (2) Reply
    I told you all to get rid of Vincent he is no good
  • Lolllll (27/05/2022, 12:39) Like (4) Dislike (0) Reply
    NOT 6 feet deep but $98K in the hole!
  • one (27/05/2022, 14:08) Like (3) Dislike (16) Reply
    They trying to kill Willock and Carvin but better days are ahead
  • Interest (27/05/2022, 14:22) Like (4) Dislike (0) Reply
    Don't forget the 5% daily interest on the unpaid legal fees. Actually the debtor owes more like $150,000 in legal fees that have accumulated since early October 2021, 8 months ago.
  • Slim Jim (27/05/2022, 14:23) Like (5) Dislike (1) Reply
    Now, I am not a fan of the former speaker. Quite frankly I found him to be proud, pompous and overbearing in his mannerisms.

    But... I absolutely refuse to believe that he acted without the knowledge and explicit consent of the then-sitting Government in initiating his court proceedings against the COI lawyers (and prior to that against Hon. Vanterpool's attempt to sit in the House). I do find it disingenuous that the present Premier now finds it convenient to repudiate him, cast him aside and agree that he pay the bill in full, when both Mr. Wilock and his Deputy Speaker (a sitting member of Government) filed the court papers jointly. Are we to assume that the Deputy Speaker acted as a rouge agent and did not also consult with or inform his colleagues as to what was going down? If so, why is he also not liable for paying the bill from his own pocket?

    I absolutely DO NOT want the people of the Virgin Islands to pay for this and other fiascos that our elected representatives have allowed us to fall into. And perhaps Mr. Willock will maintain his silence and foot the bill (with a little help from his friends?), but I don't think the electorate should be deceived by these shallow attempts of his former colleagues to distance themselves from whatever actions he took.

    He was nominated and voted in by the VIP. He acted as the legislative muscle of the VIP. He acted in coordination with VIP rhetoric and aims, and defended the values of the Party. And now, he is just another sacrifice. But who were the real puppet masters? They are still right there behind the scenes saying "Nothing to see here... we are shocked and appalled that all of this happened... our hands were tied, but now we stand here FREE, ENLIGHTENED, and UNITED... we are here for YOU."

    #BVIlove
    #draintheswamp
    #realreform
  • VG (27/05/2022, 15:14) Like (0) Dislike (1) Reply
    @ oneal suprise, we will put him right back where he
    belongs. so tek you tek dat.
  • dickie (27/05/2022, 16:22) Like (10) Dislike (0) Reply
    Sheep should help willock wid dah bill because he up to he neck in it
  • Cross hen (27/05/2022, 18:23) Like (4) Dislike (14) Reply
    Sheep was involved, Carvin and Vincent took a hard fall and Willock was the scape goat in all of this. Trust no one, they eat, drink and laugh with you while sticking the sword in your back.
  • News (27/05/2022, 18:54) Like (6) Dislike (0) Reply
    Best news I’ve read all week. Finally the judicial branch was not over ruled.
  • lol (27/05/2022, 18:58) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply
    Get it in writing next time
  • Anonymous (27/05/2022, 19:47) Like (0) Dislike (2) Reply
    In the end Julian Willock is always vindicated
  • VIP BUS (27/05/2022, 21:46) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Who got thrown under the BUS. ?
  • Cyril Romney (29/05/2022, 06:53) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Pay the money and move on.


Create a comment


Create a comment

Disclaimer: Virgin Islands News Online (VINO) welcomes your thoughts, feedback, views, bloggs and opinions. However, by posting a blogg you are agreeing to post comments or bloggs that are relevant to the topic, and that are not defamatory, liable, obscene, racist, abusive, sexist, anti-Semitic, threatening, hateful or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be excluded permanently from making contributions. Please view our declaimer above this article. We thank you in advance for complying with VINO's policy.

Follow Us On

Disclaimer: All comments posted on Virgin Islands News Online (VINO) are the sole views and opinions of the commentators and or bloggers and do not in anyway represent the views and opinions of the Board of Directors, Management and Staff of Virgin Islands News Online and its parent company.